Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does describe the shape of the returned records (field key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It is a read-only introspection call, so the main behavioral question is what comes back, which is answered. Minor gaps: no statement about ordering, stability, or whether options list presence is conditional beyond "where there are any".

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the returned content, the second front-loads the action. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema metadata tool, an agent needs to know what it returns and what to do with the result. Both are stated explicitly, and the handoff to submit_enquiry closes the workflow loop.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing only outputs and downstream usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (the fields of the Wärmepumpe Kosten Europa enquiry) and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required, help text, options. An agent can tell it is a metadata/introspection tool rather than a data fetcher. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key" gives a concrete workflow context: call this to learn the keys, then submit. That is a clear usage link to an alternative sibling. There is no explicit "use this instead of X when..." or exclusion statement, keeping it below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.